ALC-JBC Special Language

OK, members, we'll uh call the meeting to order, uh. Be on the genus comments, my co-chairs. I have none. Uh, do you have any? We'll move along. going on housekeeping items. Ms. Hamilton, do you wanna present those? Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh, one of the first things that we need to know is that there will not be any personnel items discussed in the subcommittee. Those audiences will be discussed in personnel. We'll be non-codified language that'll be handling Tony Robinson's committee. If anybody's interested in the agenda items and the documents that'll be attached. You can look on the website, um, all of the agenda items that will be handling the format that we normally use is we will go through the batched items first, and these will be pieces of language that don't have any changes other than. Requests for continuation is the next biennium. And if there's any items that are going to be held over, then those items will be pulled out of the batch and they will be attached as the first items on the next agenda, and then we will go to item D, which will be items that will be dispensed with that have changes whether there are additions, deletions, or requests for any other changes, those will be the items that we'll be talking about next. OK, thank you for that. I do have, uh, one thing to say if, if, if you're a member of this committee whenever it's time to make a motion, we'd ask that a member do that. It's kind of been the, uh, uh, past precedent that uh uh If you weren't a member of this committee, there wouldn't be any discussion by you, myself, and, uh, the house co-chair here have decided that it doesn't matter to us if you're a member of this general, general assembly, assembly and want to weigh in, then we're gonna allow that to happen in this committee, uh, but you will need to sign in because I cannot see your name. If you're not signed in to, to be able to recognize you. So with that, OK, Ms. Ham Hamilton, you're recognized to continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, if you'll look on your seats, there's a packet that's separate from the agenda, it says special language subcommittee, it pretty much describes the purpose of the subcommittee for those of you who are new. And then there are some general guidelines that are attached. Uh, it's important to note that the language that we will be reviewing is existing language that's currently in the Appropriation Acts for each state agency board commission and institutional higher education. And that the language is enforced for one year. And this language there's a number of things that can allow for flexibility, it can allow for restrictive language. It contains transfers carry forward and moves appropriation funds, positions and programs. If you allow me, I'm gonna go through some common subcommittee actions. There are some examples that you will be looking at as we go through the packets and the volumes that will be attached to the agenda. We're gonna go through some common markup formats. It's on page 2 of the document. The first one is basically gonna show you the agency request that's gonna be for existing language with date changes. On page 3, you'll see as an example, we're using the school for the blind. And it shows you the current special language and then an act number and a section number. You'll note on the left hand side of the page that anything that is marked through is being requested for deletion and anything that is underscored is asking for addition on the right hand side of the page, you'll see an executive recommendation, which is the agency's request. The next examples on page 4. And this is an agency's request for new language, so you'll note that everything on the left hand side of the page is underscored. This is something that an agency has not had in the past, and you'll note the act number is new and the section numbers new. Again, on the right hand side of the page, the executive recommendation allows for the agency's request. The 3rd example is an agency request for deletion of language. I'm sorry, addition of language on page 5. Again, it's new language that's underscored, but if you'll notice on the right hand side of the page, the executive recommendation is to deny the language. Which means that the governor does not recommend that this language be included in the agency's appropriation Act moving forward. Now this committee can always make an alternative recommendation. That will allow for the agency's request. On page 6 you'll see that this language. is being requested to be deleted, but at the top it's because it's been codified, so the agency does not need it to show up in the special language section of their appropriation bill. It's already included in statute, so it doesn't need to peer every year in the bill as well and the executive recommendations for the agency's request. On page 7. You know, the example is for a request for deletion. That the agency wants to remove language from their appropriation bill, but the executive recommendation is to continue current language. That means that going forward this language. If adopted by the committee, the recommendation, this language will appear moving forward. On page 8. This is something a little different the agency has not requested anything but is still considered new language. This is language that the executive would like to put in their appropriation bill. And again, this subcommittee can always choose not to take their recommendation and to not include the language. On page 9 I want to note any constitutional office is not going to have an executive recommendation. So this is all your constitutional officers, including your game and fish in your highway and transportation department. Their request will always be on the left hand side of the page, but you'll note on the right hand side of the page where it says executive recommendation, there is no recommendation, which means that everything will come from this subcommittee in terms of recommendations for language. The last example is on page 10. All of the recommendations that are made for institutions of higher education have to be approved by the higher education coordinating Board. So you will not see an executive recommendation on the left hand side of the page, you will see what the institution's request and whether or not it's changes, additions, or deletions, and on the right hand side of the page, you will see what the recommendation is from AAC. That's it, Mr. Chair. Thank you members that also and I don't think Miss Hamilton, you have your, uh, shoulder in front of you If you look at the on the agenda of course for you all that hadn't been here, it has the volume and the page number. It's also marked with, uh, you know, volume one and volume 2, so that's how you'll be able to keep up with it. So with that we're gonna, we're gonna start this and this is we're gonna, I'm gonna ask you all to batch these, but I'm also gonna ask, you know, if there's anything that has a question, if you have any questions on the part of these, let me rephrase. I'm gonna ask you to batch the ones that do not have any changes. Other than date changes, but if there's some of these that we want to discuss, we can do that and then we're gonna go to the, uh, the language that is, that is actually going to be new. So the The items would would be from 1 1/2. All the way over. page 4 about midway to where Dee is. So right above D all of those are just items that are that only have date changes within them. So if you all kind of look look forward with those and then if there's any questions in regards to those then we'll have those, uh, agencies to come forward. I do want to kind of point out just to the members because I've heard this so much in budget because I don't want them to not know this. Sometimes I wonder how the agencies uh funds carry forward, so if you see, and I'm gonna use this as an example, there may be multiples in here like the agency for the health department 1/20. Carry forward of funds. What that does is allow that general revenue at the end of that fiscal year. For them to actually keep it and it's not transferred back to the state. I've heard that over and over again in the budget hearings. I actually heard it today, uh, so this is the language that that will allow that just so that you know. Is there gonna be any questions? Does anybody have any questions on any of these? OK, I will have one myself for. DFNA on 2/31. If you all don't mind coming forward, it's just, it'll be a simple question. Thank you, if you just introduce yourselves. Melanie has slip, DFA Alan McVeigh, DFA. Yeah, my question is just this, of course, we all know I believe that cares was the very first, uh, part of the COVID money. You all still need this? Is there still money available? Are you looking for some refunds or what, what's the what is the reason that you still need this special language for that. I'm sorry, do you know the page, it looks like it would be 2. 31. Yes, sir. We maintained, I believe, $5 million in cares appropriation and that is due to refunds, potential refunds. We do have that lawsuit currently, um, so we know we're going to have money to send back to the federal government. So we will potentially still need to come get cares appropriation to do that. OK. So is the, as far as you know is the lawsuit, the only thing that's still outstanding with that. Um, there is a little bit of other money, um, from other sources, but it is. money that's been returned due to non-use, um, we're, we're working with the federal government to know how to return that funding. OK, that's, that's great. We kind of expected that we just wanted to make sure. Any other questions, Senator Irvin? Hold on let me find your. OK. You don't have one? Anyone else OK, again, what I'm gonna do is ask that we would batch that so what we'll be batching is everything, uh, from 1/2. All the way down to 2/83, which is right above D. On your agenda. So if we could, I need to. I need a motion for that. OK, I have a motion. Do I have a second? All in favor, say I. Any opposes like sign. Senator Gilmore, did you have a uh it'll be motioned for executive rec, I think, who, who made the motion down there? Was it Senator Dismay. All right. Let's, let's hold up. You should be on, yeah, that's what I want. Alright thank you Mr. Chairman, this is really just uh I, I'm not gonna do this to everybody that comes up and what what we've got on some of these date changes, but I'll just make, I'll use one as an example of something I'd like to see between now and session, uh, as we keep rolling these dates forward, uh, so for instance, if you want to go to. Uh, or chiropractic examiners. Special language and that's gonna be on page 9 or 8 and 9. So that's allowing $10,000 to be transferred uh from professional fees to a private investigator. There's the requirement of a complaint report to be filed with the legislature. What is the status of all of those things? Is it still useful? Have we been doing this, you know, transferring over 10,000 for a decade, and if so, do we just need to make it permanent? What, what are we doing? How often is it happening? Are the reports even useful? Uh, anyone reading the reports. Again, I don't want to do it to everyone, but if you look at these, that's kind of a typical format we're allowing a transfer to happen, uh, occasionally, that's gonna have some requirement for report to justify it. Are we doing anything to, you know, to follow up on that justification. Yeah And I think you're not asking that as a question of me, but I just, I just think the agencies need to be on notice that I agree. You know, and we can do that one by one here today if we want to, and everybody can stay here till 10 o'clock at night, or, uh, I, I would sure like for them to get with staff. Um, before we go into session and say how necessary this is and if we need to to stop doing it. I mean, it was put in place for a reason, and that the reason was because they didn't think it was going to be forever. Right? And now it's become. You know, how long have we been rolling over the chiropractic board, uh, $10,000. I have no idea. So And then we talked about doing this every single time and we do, you know, staff has been really good about gathering some information. I just like the agencies to step in and, and help some too. Very good point, Senator dismay. OK, and Senator Gilmore, uh, You'd ask to restate that Center Hill, why don't you go back and let's just restate that and I believe that your motion is going to be, uh, move executive rec on, on those as a batch, correct? OK, and everybody's already voted that. I'm gonna do it one more time. All in favor say aye. Any oppose. OK, that motion does carry. Thank you, Senator Gilmore. OK, with that, we'll ask uh Miss Hamilton if she will start with, uh, Right below D. Follow up Yes, Senator Irvin, do you have something? So I think To Senator Desing's point, which is well taken. Um, is there any type of action that this committee could take as part of a recommendation for what we've just passed as executive recommendations for these date changes to, um, To have the agencies do that and report back to us at a certain date, time, date and time. During these budget hearings. I, I think that's an appropriate. I don't know what that date would be, but in preparation for upcoming session to get this cleaned up, we could give them some time. It's just a suggestion. Um, but we could give them some time to come back to us and I. With that List of whether this is. Continuing to be necessary or not. And if I need to make that in the form of emotion, I'm happy to do so. Let me, and I know Senator Dennis, he just, as he said, he was just using one as an example. There was multiples here. Just, just so that the membership does remember our staff, uh, last session, I believe it was, they did go through the entire code and they tried to pick out the stuff that would be within the session, I mean, should be within the statutes, and we moved as much as we could, there probably are still other items. Uh, some of these things with like the amounts uh because I've questioned this also. I just wasn't gonna bring it up, but some of the amount, some of the items that are within special language and maybe, maybe the chiropractors is the right one that our whole thing on that particular one was, is we didn't want to put the 10,000 into a statute because then if it needed to go to 15,000 that special language, you know, Was the appropriate place. But the center dismay's point, I promise you there's other stuff within there that we could probably put in within the statute. So. I mean, whatever this committee wants to do as far as a motion or we can uh we can have staff to look at it. Just one more time as we move through these budget hearings to kind of see if they, they can gather it or again, We can have the agencies come up on every one of them. I'll do whatever you all want to do. I, I don't necessarily want that. I mean, thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't necessarily want the agencies to come up on every single one of them, but I mean, between now and, I don't know, 3 weeks or so. I think it may be appropriate for us to revisit to see if we need to continue any of these or not. And maybe they've already done that. Maybe they can send us a report on that. I don't know. I just. I mean, it's, it is more than just that one, and he was using that example if it's. If it's, if it's OK, Senator Ervin, since I think everybody's just kind of sitting here thinking about Senator Gilmore. I'll recognize you in a minute. We could, uh, we kind of, we could, we could think about it because we're gonna have another committee meeting next Wednesday. I know that would lose a week. But it also, like I say, any of the agencies that are sitting out here listening to this, they should know to be prepared that yours may just come up in here, uh, if you're normally used to it being in a batch, then it may not. We'll let the committee kind of talk about it amongst ourselves and just see what we want to do. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for that. Senator Gilmore. You're recognized. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and that was just, I think you pretty much stated where I was going in the sense of, I think a lot of this can be brought from the agency at, at their requests to be appropriated if I'm understanding that correctly, uh, and maybe that's the appropriate function, um, to do that. But again, I think pausing to, to think it through is an appropriate thing, so just throw that out there. Thank you, sir. I'm just, I don't know who was next, but I'm gonna take, uh, Senator Dimaying and then Senator Clark, you'll be next. in Representative Kavanaugh, I'm getting to you. I'm apologize. And, and it may be, I mean, A lot of these things are going to have been created because an agency wanted something legislature didn't necessarily agree and so we're gonna do it, you know, one time. And then that's turned into 2 times and 3 times and 10 times and 20 times and so the legislative reasoning behind even wanting to do it in special language. No one even knows anymore. Uh, and so I, I really think what would be helpful and, and we may have this I think staff probably has this to some degree aside from just the language here, which we can read the why would be helpful. And so if the aency is asking to do it again if they can just tell us why. They want to do it again. I mean, and I'm not talking about a twenty-page document. I'm just a, a summary of Hey, this is why we want to do this and why we'd like to continue to do this. Just a justification. Uh I'll take, uh, Senator Clark, and again, if somebody wants to put something in the form of a motion today, we'll, we'll definitely take it. Senator Clark Were you wanting to You got, you don't have anything? OK, we're, I thought you were earlier. OK. Representative Kavanaugh. Thank you. Well, I'm willing to make it a motion and what the motion I would like for it to be, is that on this special language, the agencies can give us a report that is actually going to show us the special language. When it was initiated, what it was needed for and why it still needs. Then I think that kind of gives us in a snapshot. Why they still need it. And if it's not needed, then we don't need to do it, but if it's still needed and it's something we need to codify, then we need to codify it and get it out of special language. There you go. OK, so you've put that in the form of emotion. Any discussion on that motion? Anything anybody want to add anything? Senator Gilmore? And I'll second that for discussion purposes since we, so we need to do that. I, I think, is there, was there a, a timeline or deadline on the agencies to, to present that. I don't know that I heard that representative. Hold on, I'm trying to get you on my. This, this is a this is the first I've used the small one. Today's the first one on this, on this screen. No particular time, but I mean, that's up for discussion. I think that we need to have it ready so they can, um, for session so we can look at whether or not we want to get it codified and taken out a special language. So, you know, we still have some time where they could get that done, um, that we could still get appropriation bills drafted, but we need to, we need to, if they, as Senator Bismma said, if it needs to be Codified is to be codified if it needs to go away, it needs to go away. Instead of having this reoccurring special language. No, I agree. I just, I'm concerned of the timeliness of getting this done, how much work that that's going to add in addition to, you know, the agency. I mean, look, I, I think some of it is incumbent upon them. It's special language within their appropriation. So, you know, I think they need to justify it, but I do think that within the constraints that we're working in, we just need to make sure kind of what our expectation is and so with that, I think they're probably needs to be Some sort of understanding of what we expect. I think it's as simple as what Senator Disma said, and then some realistic timeline. I agree. You finished Senator Gilmore. Thank you, sir. OK, Senator Ervin. I You're recognized. I would just say if if Representative Kavanaugh is open to, um, adding like a one month time frame and then including the batch of, um, special language requests that we just passed. That those would also be included in that report. I don't want to expunge the vote by which we have already passed these, but that way it would encompass all that we just did. I'm a, I'm, I'm a, I'm OK with that. Are you OK with that, Senator Gilmore? I'll get him. Senator Gilmore, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and maybe I didn't, I think we did have a vote, right on the batch. What we did, but what, what I, what I believe is that we're just gonna make that retroactive and to include this then I'm agreeable to that. Absolutely. I don't mean to put words in anybody's mouth, but I think that's what you all are saying, correct? OK. Representative Kavanaugh, if you don't mind, just, if you would try to restate that and, and include may, may I add that we maybe set a target date of the ALC week in November. Is that, is that agreeable? Is that a month? Roughly, I'm agreeable with that. OK, I'm gonna attempt the motion. The motion is going to be that the agencies provide a list to the committee, uh, for any special language that they have, it's ongoing, a reason why it needs to be ongoing when it was first initiated and the justification of it, um, and then they need to have that ready so that we'll have it for ALC week in November. Including Including the ones that we just batched and passed. OK, we have a motion. Do we have a second? 2nd. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion will, uh, that motion passed, so that was some good work, I think. So, OK with that, uh, Miss Hamilton, do you want to go to D and it's these now these reports right here are the ones that are gonna be, uh, uh, have changes or new or deletions, so. Definitely want to look at these close. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're in volume 1 on page 5. This is language for the Department of Health is specifically for employment of attorneys for the state board of dental examiners, dental, I'm sorry, state medical board and the state board of optometry. This is language that they're requesting to be deleted because this language was codified during the last regular session. It's now entitle 25 of the Arkansas statute. The executive recommendations for the agency's request. Well Let me see I Is there any questions in regards to this or we want to get the agency down here. I'd like for them to come down. So if you don't mind just Recognizing yourself? Don Adams, chief of staff, Department of Health Matt Gilmore, Department of Health. OK and we're specifically talking about on 1/5, correct? That's the one y'all have. But my question on that is, so. Do you have your, do you have the in-house attorney who's gonna handle your stuff or is the AG gonna handle it or, or how, what's our, what's our thought process on that? So this language was been there quite a while, the AG's office handles these boards now as they handle most of our other boards and commissions and other entities in the state, it's working well, but yeah, it's it's duplicative of other language and statute now, so we don't, if we were to seek outside counsel, we go through the AG's office and the governor's office, so it's just not needed, but we have, we have attorneys in the AG's office helping us with this now, so, OK. My next question is gonna be this. So let's just say that there is, is the need of this and the AG do. Do you all contact them or would like the, the dental examiner's board, would they contact the AG directly, how would that work? We would go through the governor's office and discuss, you know, what the issue was the need, then we would then they would come through us, the department, they're our employees and we're monitoring that and we would work with the AG's office to figure out what was needed and that sort of thing. OK. All right, thank you for that. Any other questions? A Senator Irvin, do you have a motion? OK, the motion is for, uh, Agency request. We have a second. All in favor say aye. Any oppose like sign, OK, that'll pass. Thank you. You may, you may just want to. Are you all of these are yours, is that right? Or do you just, that's the only one you had, right? Yeah. Yes, I'm sorry, Labor and licensing is next. Thank you. OK, you're asked. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon members Katie Walden, Bureau of Legislative Research Fiscal Division. The next piece of language for your review today is in volume 1, page 46. This is the only piece of special language from the Department of Labor and Licensing that is requesting changes today. This particular piece of language is with the state Board of Public Accountancy. It was added in 2019. It allowed the board to spend up to $500 per year to purchase promotional items for the board to. distribute at career fairs. The agency is requesting to delete this language because in the last regular session, this provision was codified and so they state that this is no longer needed and the executive recommendation provides for this request. OK. Uh, we have a motion. A motion for agency request. We have a 2nd, we have 2, all in favor say aye. Any opposed That'll carry The next thing we're gonna go to is gonna be 1/59 public employee retirement. Thank you, Ms. Char. Billie Parish, legislative research, we're on page 59 in volume 1. this is for the, um, public employee retirement system. It's uh page 59 and 60. They are both identical changes. The first one is special, uh, state police retirement fund transfers, and this language allows the transfer of 50,000 from the state police retirement fund to the Arkansas Employees Retirement Fund for costs associated with the pension administration system. The transfer of sunset at the end of 26th and it transfers subject to approval by the Chief Fiscal officer, uh, the original language is for purchase and implementation of the pension administration system. The agency requests is to strike purchase and implementation and update with ongoing maintenance and operation of the system. The executive recommendation is to keep purchase and implementation language and add ongoing maintenance and operation language. The dates are also updated, so it's the language of the agency is in agreement with the executive recommendation, that's page 59, page 60 is. the same changes, but this is for the special judicial retirement fund transfers. Any members have any Senator Gilmore, let me. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just, I get clarification, changing, striking that language from purchase and implementation to for ongoing maintenance and operations. Those, those are two pretty different things. One could argue. So I'm just, that seems a bit substantive there, but. Just, just my. Yes, sir, and the executive recommendation is to maintain both of those pieces of language to uh continue have purchase implementation but also add ongoing maintenance operation. OK. But, why don't we get the, uh, agency up here because I may have, yeah. If you don't mind just recognizing yourself and then Senator Gilmore will start with his question. Amy Fletcher, executive director of APERS, AJRS and Aspers. OK, Senator Gilmore. Thank you, Ms. Fetcher. Um, again, I guess my question is, why wouldn't we just sort of move this over into statute or, or allocate, you know, an appropriation to cover those. Does that make sense? We could. I believe that, um, you know, and it's been this way since long before I went over 2.5 years ago, um, and, and they haven't changed the 50,000 in, in several years that, um, The state police and the judicial retirement system are helping to find the uh the system. I think we spent like 2.5 million last year, so Apres is picking, picking up most of that and the other two are contributing 50,000. And I believe, you know, we can put it in statute. I just thought it was in there because of the amount in case that ever needed to be changed. OK. All right. Thank you. So I have a question if So, and I think I heard you just say they're, they're each contributing 50,000 or they're, so they're not doing like a pro rata share or anything based upon the membership it's around 2% of the maintenance cost when you take, uh, the number of membership of those two systems, which is much smaller than Apers, um, I, I could make a case that it needs to be increased for sure, but we've just been trying to be good partners and leave it where it is for the other two agencies. I was wondering if my main reason was not to ask you to increase, but, uh, my, well, my main, my main reason was just that if we did try to put that into statute or whatever if we would have to do some type of allocation to make that division also. So kind of percentage. So if we do if we do go down that route, we'd have to look at it from that standpoint, I guess. And that would be fine if that's the will of the body. Any other questions in regard to this? Senator Irvin, hold on a second. Let me find you. OK, you're recognized, ma'am. You said that it was 2% of. They're they they contribute 2%. What's approximately 2% of the overall cost. OK, well, what, how, how about what would be the percentage of the membership? Of the, uh, of the people that are on the judicial retirement fund. Versus to the percentage, in other words, is that fair? Is it fair that the retirees from the public employees retirement system are funding more of the cost of this versus those that are on the judicial retirement fund. What's the percentage of could make a case that it's not completely accurate on the amount of membership and that APERS is, is carrying more of the, the burden of the cost, yes. OK, well, I'm not opposed to your special language, the executive recommendation for purchase implementation to keep that in the language and add this additional caveat, but I think that it's probably time for you to look at that and to restructure that a little bit better. And so I I mean, I don't know if that needs to be part of the motion, but. To me, that's a great example of what we just discussed. This right here is a great example of what we just discussed. Let's be more thoughtful and engaged in the, in what we need to do in statute and dictate this and revamp the special language, not just continue to maintain what we've always done, whether it makes sense or not. So, you know. My motion would be for executive or recommendation, but that the agency look at trying to adopt. The statutorily. And, and And change the way that this is being funded. I don't know if that's a motion I can make, but I tell you what. If we want to do this because here's the thing, we need to have a motion on 1/59 and, and then we'll have one on 1/60, uh, Representative Kavanaugh, were you finished on that, Senator Urban, and then I'll come back to you to make that other motion after we do something on this. OK. Representative Kavanaugh. Yes, I really just kind of have a question for staff or chair. So if we approve these, but we're gonna ask them to come back to us with a report saying why they need it. I mean. If we, if it's determined that it's not needed, needs to be codified and we've already approved the special language during session, a special language is gonna have to come back and not approve that and get it codified? No, we. I think staff saying the same thing that we, we could expunge that vote. So if we, if there's something that pops up after we get this and we want to come back and expunge it, then we can, we can do that and have another motion. Of course, we'll have to get the votes to expunge it, so which that will just be a majority is correct. So that'll just be a majority. You know, the membership, but we would have to do it that way. OK. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Senator Clark, is that you? Nope, Senator Dimay. I'm sorry from this angle that looks like Senator Clark. Careful, you're gonna force him to Well, I'll just leave it I'm not sure. Senator Clark, if that's you or me, You're recognized, Senator, thank you. Uh, I mean, I guess my recommendation would be, I think it's a pretty simple fix in special language, um. For them and I mean, if you could come back and just bring us a recommendation and we'll adopt it as a legislative wreck based on the per member allocation of the total cost. Then we can adopt that piece of special language and not adopt this one. We're, we're gonna be coming back to do this anyway in week 2. So If you don't mind, just pull it back. Come up with some language. I'll be happy to make the motion be based on a per member allocation and then hopefully you'll get, you can have something that is real legislation and we can strike all the special language we can get into session and, and be done with it. OK, I have, I have a motion by Senator dismaying and then I have a we don't need anything. We're just gonna pass over today. OK, so you don't want to put it into motion. Are you willing to pull it back? Certainly. OK, that would be best. Thank you for that. OK, members, we misspoke up here just a little bit. If we do have a motion we're representative Kavanaugh. Is she here? Representative Kavanaugh told you wrong that if, if something was to come back after we passed, it will take 2/3 vote. It will take 2/3 vote. Of the committee. Well, we didn't on those, but. No. One of y'all want to cheer. So it will take 2/3, so I did. OK, so we all, we all understand that. will be passed over Yeah, we passed over those two, so you're Ms. Hamilton, you can. You got all that. You're, you're next. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next pieces of language for your review are the pieces with changes from the public service commission. Those are found beginning on page 61 of volume one. The first piece of language is on page 61, as I said, this is a contingency restriction, special language for the public service commission's utilities division. You may recall in their budget hearing, the public Service commission. Currently has appropriated a million dollars annually for just contingency expenses if they have any extra legal expenses come up, if they need additional rate review for this particular one, it's more for legal expenses. This piece of language is over 20 years old. It has only been utilized one time in 2008. The agency has requested to continue the language and the executive recommendation provides for the language to be deleted. And so the committee is aware of the status of the appropriation is. that when it was presented in joint budget, The committee made the recommendation to adopt the executive reg to delete the appropriation. So those are my comments on the utilities division contingency language. OK, members, so you heard that. So really the budget committee's already taken action on this, so this is, in my opinion, just clean up because, uh, uh, the budget committee itself's already done the executive rec, which is gonna be to delete the language. So if we could, I need a motion on 1 1/61 for executive rec. I got that from Senator Irvin. Senator Gilmore, uh, second all in favor, say ah. Any oppose? That carries. Same thing on 1 1/64 contingency restriction for the tax division. Do you want to present that that's the same, same exact presentation, correct? Yes, sir. OK. Do we have, we have a motion by Senator Irvin. Second, Senator Gilmore, all in favor say aye. And he opposed that motion will carry. The next thing we're gonna have is gonna be State Parks, heritage and tourism. 24 Members were gonna be in volume 2. It's the orange tab in your manual. Billy or Mr. Parish, you're, you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just Billy Parish legislative research, we're on page 4 in volume 2. This is for the division of Heritage. This is the Arkansas Cultural Institutions Trust Fund and this language allows the secretary to direct a transfer from the division of Heritage Special Fund account. That's the conservation sales tax and uh to send that to the Arkansas Cultural Institutions Trust Fund. This is to make grants from major capital uh improvement projects unobligated funds may be transferred back. To that fund, uh, the agency request is to discontinue this language and the executive recommendation is also the agency requests. This language is tied to an $8 million preparation that the agency and the executive recommendation was to discontinue at yesterday's hearing. However, the legislative action was to continue spending authority for this item. The last and only utilization, uh, of this language is in 5th year 23, when $2.5 million was transferred. OK, and that, that was a fairly good. The thing was, is this is kind of like the other one. This is gonna be totally different than a motion that you normally see because the budget committee, uh, actually is not wanting to go along with the agency or the executive recommendation. They've actually already passed it. So what we're gonna have to have is a motion to continue the current language as is without the deletion. So Sent her dismaying. You're, sir. But I mean, I, I would just say what happened yesterday, which by the way, I apologize, I wasn't there. That was actually appropriation of fund that I. Help create through legislation that I was perfectly fine with going away based on its prior use, but. The Committee felt differently, that's great, so there's, you know. But I would just say if you read this, I'm not sure that it's necessary to keep this special language to have the appropriation, it would just be the funding mechanism would be different, so if we wanted to fund that, uh, fund during session we could, or if there wanted to be another transfer in some other way you could, but I'm not, I'm not sure that we have to hang on to this special language and the other thing I would say is if. It's all contingent on the executive branch wanting to do a transfer and if they didn't even want the fund to exist to begin with, I'm, I'm not sure what we we accomplishing by keeping it in place. OK, Representative Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think our concern yesterday was that this program and the fund balance was going to be going away and going into some other area that we had no. Really direction of where it was going to go before we had direction when it was going away where we didn't know where it was gonna be used at or what it was gonna be used for. And I think what we were looking for is the ability to use these funds to help smaller museums, and we probably need to draft language for that that actually says that's what this new guidelines will be used for much like you did when you passed this. I think that was what was the, the catalyst to what happened yesterday is that this, I think it's $11 million in fund balance was going to be. up by the agency and using it in another way that wasn't going to benefit the other museums in the state. OK, are you finished? OK, thank you, Representative Kavanaugh, Senator Irvin. Just question for staff, what was the 2.5 million? Used for Uh, Senator, there 2.5 million was transferred in 23 and 800,000, which the US Marshals Museum, 750,000 which is the Sultan Museum, uh, 400,000 went to the Cold War Museum, 300,000 went to the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts and 250,000 went to the Arkansas Symphony, uh, orchestra. That answer your question, Senator Irvin. OK. Was, was there an actual motion in joint budget on this? Was there an, do you remember what that motion was? It was by Representative Kavanaugh. It was to continue that, uh, appropriation. So it would actually So I don't really know, you know, it's a little different in here. I mean, since that motion's already made, uh, been made by the committee, joint budget, Senator Dismay, you're lit up, you chair that, so. Ereness, sir. This is the way, this is the mechanism to transfer funds into that balance is what that or into that account is what that is. So it's almost separate apart if I'm understanding, and again, I wasn't here, and apologize for that, but Representative Kavanaugh's concern was there is money sitting there right now. We don't know how it's going to be allocated. But I, I, I guess I'm confused. How much money is sitting in the cultural Trust Fund right now? Yes, sir, there, there's zero balance in the cultural trust fund. This gives the ability of the secretary of the department to transfer conservation sales tax proceeds from another appropriation section to this section it's how you fund. The fund. My, my question though is, what, where does the 11 million? That's where I'm confused. 11 million is in the Arkansas Division of Heritage Special Fund account, that is a fund for their conservation sales tax appropriation section, that is the section that, uh. Uh, provides the spending authority for, you know, using the uh special revenue for the departments and so they have an appropriation that's the requesting 7.9 million for 26 and uh another 7.9 million for 27. So I'm trying to understand. So the only linkage between. That fund and what we're talking about here is the fact that you could transfer from that fund to this one, though that's not a requirement and so we've done really nothing to. Fixed the concern about additional dollars going to the museum because this in this special language isn't going to do that either. This special language just says they get to if they want to, which they said they don't want to, which means they're not going to, and so you're essentially will keep an appropriation on the books, books and pieces of special language that. is at the end of the road that goes nowhere. Unless I misunderstanding the conversation. I don't know that you're misunderstanding. I'm just trying to, I'm trying to meet the will of the full budget committee and I, I think they're Their actual motion was that they wanted to continue the language, so I think we all know that the funding the funding is something that's gonna be done during the. Session anyway, so again, I don't know, I don't know how we would handle this since the, uh, the full committee has already made that motion. That's, that's kind of my dilemma with this particular one, Senator Dimay. So, Senator Irvin, do you have another question? I'm trying to get you. Thanks. So I, I hear both sides of this. I mean, I guess then it would be more directive and special language probably could be filed to direct an exact amount of money into this trust fund. Um, versus it being permissive as this language reflects, um, It sounds like it was created and then utilized for. Certain projects that people wanted to fund and so we created a vehicle for that to occur. Um. But I think the concern is that there's a lot of other projects around the state. That are worthy of the same amount of attention and funding that did not get. Uh, funded. And if this funding mechanism is available should be spent, I think across the state. I think was what the direction was, so. I hear both sides of this. I mean, you could leave this in place or you could get rid of it, but at the end of the day, it's going to require more directive special language. To accomplish the goal. Thank you, Senator Irvin. Senator dismay. Yeah, I mean, I think, uh, let's talk to the agency. I mean, it's been my experience that when an agency doesn't want to do something, it's very difficult to force them to do it, uh, the way that this language is written, the fact that you have appropriation does not guarantee that anything's going to happen. I mean, what I guess I would like is a little bit of feedback from the agency that you've heard the concerns there's some projects around the state that people would like to be able to apply to some competitive grant process for to be able to fund, uh, maybe it's a museum, maybe it's a, whatever. Um, I don't think everything across the board that's been funded was a museum, the symphoy being one, but is there a mechanism for that to happen without. This fun program or is it necessary to be able to fund museums that way. And would you be willing to sit down and have a conversation with the concerned members in between now and session to see if there's something that can be done. OK, if you don't mind, if you all three would just recognize yourself before you begin and then you'll be recognized to begin. Sure, Shay Lewis, secretary of the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism? Good afternoon, Suzanne Grubmeyer, chief of staff, Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism. Jamie Fisher, uh, CFO Parks Heritage and Tourism. OK, you're recognized. Thank you, sir. Thank you, chair, and, and I would agree, um. With Senator Dismaying and, and would continue to stand by the recommendation to, to, uh, uh, eliminate this special language, uh, based on what I heard yesterday, the Arkansas cultural Institution Trust Fund is not really the correct vehicle for, um, or the best vehicle for accomplishing the will of the committee's joint budget, uh, as well as special language, uh, if what I'm hearing is correct, associated with. Small grants or grants for small museums we have a small grants program that to Senator do things Dismay's Point, uh, could be revised or updated to expand. The purpose, uh, or the under the language that was approved. Through the rules committee, uh, for the cultural institutions trust fund, uh, the factors in that included total project cost of $7 million or higher, and so kind of had a very specific purpose and was created for that reason, uh, we feel like there is an opportunity to update the small grants program to include maybe uh some additional approaches and grants to hit museums uh above the small grants, uh, maybe kind of in the middle, middle ground there. And could make those in a recommendations. With the approval of the governor. OK. Senator Dima, are you finished there? Do you, do you want to continue or Senator Irvin's next? But donations that would help create bigger projects, that's why the pro right why this was created. They had other vehicles to do essentially. This other thing already this was in case there needed to be some type of partnership with the public, uh, to be able to get a major project across the finish line that's why you saw the $7 million number, you know, these were never intended for small projects but really big joint efforts between the public and whatever the, you know, the state may need to do to help get something. Across the line, which I think you saw that happen with some of these projects and I'd argue some are. Still not across the finish line, but Senator Irvin OK, so I'm a little confused on the 7 million number because what was said by Mr. Parish was that it was 2.5 million. That was transferred in, not 7 million. And You know, I don't know how some of these projects were selected. Was there a process? Was there an application process, you know, you said the Sultana. I don't really remember that, but how did that come about and how much money is being spent on the sultana. project, where is it? How did that come about? Like, You know, you know what I'm saying, like, we, we want there to be a fair and transparent process here. I don't know. I mean, those are not 7 million, what you said total project overall total project, $7 million. So through the creation of those museums, the total project expended was at $7 million. There was rules that were passed within um rules that were passed in May of 2022, the committee that was, um, uh, established was 3 members, the division of our, the director of the division of Arkansas Heritage, the director of Arkansas. tourism and a director of an accredited museum within the division of Arkansas Heritage. Those, um, committee members went through applications that were applied for proceeding, um, I believe that the date that we awarded the grants was March of 2023, and all of the applications were received prior to then. The rules stated that museums should have um a capital project over $7 million and that those projects needed to have other sources of income and that they had significant economic impact in their area. And so those were kind of the threshold of criteria associated with the grant and the um applications were considered. To my knowledge, and, and I shouldn't even speak things that I'm not 100% sure on, but I'm almost sure that every, most of the um people who applied if they met the criteria were awarded, um, and then the funds. I believe it was 2.5 million were expended in total, um, again, I'm, I'm not sure the 7 million, it has 8 million is the cap for the appropriation, but so did you do any follow up to see if they've completed their projects or spent that 7 million and what again is Sultana? Yes, ma'am. Um, so yes, we have, um we actually had a meeting with the Sultana Museum last week, um, where is that it's in Marion, um, and it is the greatest maritime disaster in our uh in world's history, um, and so that museum is underway. We met with their director about their capital project, um, and they are, I think slated to, they're phasing their opening, and they are slated to open the first phase next. Um, so it's your, so you're saying that you want this, this whole program will go away. The special language associated with the program, yes. But so, so you don't intend, we're done with this. You don't intend to continue supporting. Anybody else like the way you have these other projects. That's our recommendation and that's your recommendation. So everybody else that may have a small museum is would be eligible to apply for this other program is what you're saying, and what's that? How much money are you putting into that one the small grants program is funded at $50,000 a year. It is for. museums, it's, it's a smaller scale. It's for operation cost and ongoing expenses, but, but we are the, the concept is the expansion of that program to include, uh, museums that are in a middle, middle range, not quite. The scale of these large Institutions, but kind of something in the middle of the range. We've been talking internally as a staff and have known for some time that that program was due for a revision and update and and expansion. OK, uh, I, I mean, thank you for the. I To me, this is just. So, so would, would you have the appropriation authority to be able to transfer money from your conservation tax into this museum program. You already have that appropriation authority. You do have that authority to do that. Correct, Jamie. And there's no limit on the amount of money. There's no cap like we've seen in some of these other special languages. You don't have up to 100,000 or up to 200,000, you could just, you could transfer it. OK, well, I OK. I don't like any of that. Well Can I add just one piece, um, one of the things that we heard yesterday was that this particular, um, special language was gonna address some of the needs throughout the state. And I think that regardless of what, um, That it, it's not ideal whether it's a small museum grant or the large, I think that it is a discussion. That's the vehicle that's not even the right vehicle for what you're trying to accomplish, and I think we do want to have conversations with you all to meet the needs, because I do think that there is the ability to have, um, the right rules and regulations to accommodate the needs. We want to be responsive to museums across the state, but this particular one. Is, is different. You finished Senator Urban. Yes, ma'am, and Representative Kavanaugh, you're up next. You're ready. No, you're not. Now you're ready. Thank you, but, but do you, you, you see the difference. To me, this looks very political. I'm just going to state it. That looks very political with a lot of money. 2.5 million is different for how many projects did you say, Mr. Parish, total? 55. OK, so 55 over here. Don't know if they had consultants. That were able to maneuver them through to get this or not? And then 50,000 for everybody else, all across the state that may have Like a small World War 2 museum or whatever. I, I don't think that's appropriate. And, and that's just maybe me, but again, 50,000 for all of this, but 2.5 million for these five, you know, and I see this repeatedly with small rural towns and small rural areas of the state of Arkansas and at what point are we going to, you know, care about that. So outside of the discussion of special language, I get it, but it does go to the fact that this is why the was made yesterday. This is why this special language, I think, is a point of contention and discussion because there's a big discrepancy here between 5 projects getting 2.5 million versus everybody else having to fight for pennies over here, you know, because they, they don't have somebody that's gonna help maneuver them through this or whatever. I'm not sure, but I like the idea of being able to support that. I like the idea of being able to support the efforts that are ongoing in partnership. You know, with people that are trying to do this locally. So, You know, uh, it's a challenge to bring that forward, I guess, or somebody here will write it. Thank you, Senator Representative Kavanaugh, you're up, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I hear what you're saying is you want to do away with this program, because you don't see any more big museums coming in State Arkansas. Basically, they got to be a 7 million over for project, which I understand, that's what Senator Dismay started this for, but what you're hearing from us is we have a real need for that money that you would have used for those larger projects could be used. in the medium to small museums that exist, which are a benefit tourism draw to small communities and medium sized communities in the state of Arkansas. So my question is this, if we get rid of this special language, but then we draft other special language that would allow that transfer that you were going to use for this program to another fund that would fund that with guidelines. Is that something that could work is it something that you're agreeable to. So, a couple points to clarify. We haven't had funding in this program for 2 fiscal years, so there isn't a specific amount that was set aside that that would have been continued, uh, for any purpose there it was not defined in that way, uh, I, I think the department would be willing to look into exactly what you're talking about, uh, under the guidance of the governor. OK. So I guess my question is this, if we let the special language not pass. OK. And the funds not created. We've got an appropriation out there for, with no fund. Nothing happens, correct? That's the way I see it. OK, then they can't transfer that appropriation to anything else, correct? No, not without becoming before peer. They would have to, if they would have to come before Pier to ask for that request. I do believe staff, if I'm wrong on that, let me know. And then that would give us time to work with the agency to come up with a plan for the medium to small museums in the state that need this assistance. And my understanding is the governor is all right and understands the needs of the small and medium. Museums is my understanding. I mean, it's not that she's against them, she understands the need. This is just not going to be the mechanism to get them, but if we could come up with the program, there could be support there, is my understanding. So, I guess that's my question. We do nothing, don't pass this. We got an appropriation nobody uses. And then we go back to the drawing board. You're asking me this I'm asking, uh, this is, I'm, I'm gonna go back. This is all great discussion and, and I'm glad we're having it. I mean, that's what we're, that's what we're down here for me is the, uh, chairman of And I can speak for both of us, we've been put into a little bit different situation here because we're the subcommittee. Of the full committee and the full committee has already recommended that they wanted to continue the language now and Representative Kavanaugh, I'm on a suggest something, but I wanna, I want you to, to be OK with it. If, if we want if we want to do what the agency request is if that's what we think that we may want to do, I would think that what we would want to do is that, is that this subcommittee. Uh, would recommend back to the joint committee that they actually expunge expunge their vote that they had had on that particular item. And then of course that you know that we would go ahead and accept uh uh. You know, the agency request or you can send it back to special language, but from my standpoint, I mean, it, uh, you all, most of all you are are you all are veteran members here and you understand the situation that we're in, uh, the full committee's already made the, made the recommendation which kind of puts us in a spot, but if you all wanna do that, to making a recommendation that we go back to joint budget and then come up with a solution working with the agency to do what wanting to accomplish because I think you now understand and be honest with you, there's wide support in the body for that to happen. OK, so are you wanting to do a motion and if you're wanting to do a motion, could the motion say something along the lines that special language committee recommends that joint budget expunge their vote as it related to that particular item. Yes. OK. So that's a motion. Is there a second? Senator, dismaying, you're a second, and then you're gonna have a discussion. Sir, Sen dismay, would you, would you, uh, restate what you said? Hold on just a minute. OK, you should be if I understand the motion and then and. Yeah, the motion is, uh, executive rec with a recommendation that the pre-budget committee. Uh expunge by which they adopted legislative recommendation. Yes Well Let me, let me make a 100% sure what you're saying is, is the motion would go ahead and, and say that we're approving the executive rec or the agency request in here. Is that correct, Senator Dismay? Yeah, and if, if we just want to back up one step here again, I wasn't here yesterday. I apologize. I was here in the afternoon but not in the morning. I would have probably been able to enlighten a little bit about the background of the fund, that it wouldn't have helped the projects that we were talking about needing help and, and whatever else in that meeting, apologize for that tomorrow or I, I, I intend to make. recommendation To expunge the vote by which we adopted legislative recommendation, OK? And Representing Kavanaugh, centered what centered dismaying is is requesting that that that we would also do the executive rec, which would mean that that special language would be deleted, right? We would delete this special language because it's not needed. That's correct because that is actually the executive, the agency requests. So is that OK in your motion? Yes. OK, so that's the motion. Senator dismay, you say you were 2. Any other discussion. Yes, sir. Senator Johnson. Uh Hold up. Senator Johnson, hold on. Yeah No, I'm sorry, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not a member of the committee. I appreciate the subcommittee, I appreciate you allowing me to ask this, and I did miss the earlier part of this discussion, I was out, but uh. Is this bringing it back to where we were prior to the action of the committee yesterday morning. I wouldn't say prior to it. I wouldn't say prior to it because actually we're, we're having to recommend that the full committee expunge their vote. So that would, that would have been earlier and then so we're gonna have to see if they're gonna be willing to expunge their vote on this. They're going to have to be a lot of explanation whenever we get before the full committee, then that would mean, I guess that if that was expungement was done, we'd be going back to square one on on this particular we'd be going back to square one with the exception that the motion that is going to come out of here is that we're recommending at that point that that full budget Or the pre-budget committee that they, uh, adopt the agency or, uh, executive request. That was what I. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, panel. If that's not right by anybody that's made the motion, speak up. OK. OK. All right, so we had a motion, we had a second. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye. That was weak. Any opposed? I heard no, no one opposed, so the motion will carry. OK, we'll go to the next item which is going to be perish or you, you got that? Yes sir. And that's gonna be 2-10. We're on page 10. This is now for the Department of Parks and Tourism, the division of Parks and Tourism. This is a small fest uh small festival funding. Uh, the language requires the division to dedicate 150,000 for small festivals in Arkansas communities of less than 10,500 people. Any funds not granted out in the fiscal year shall be available for other tours and promotion efforts. Uh, the request is to strike the provision that dedicates funding to communities of less than 1050. population. Division told me the threshold prohibited many of their industry partners from applying, removing the threshold will extend the opportunity to more Arkansas communities and their intent is to still prioritize uh rural communities based on application. The executive recommendation is the agency. OK, Senator Irvin. I, I would want language that states what the intention is. So. I, I, it, again, Your prioritizing bigger festivals, you're not power choosing small festivals, which is intention of what this is supposed to be. So I I don't, I apologize, but I've been here way too long where people say, oh, well, our intention is to do this, but then that doesn't ever happen. So it's got to be in writing, in my opinion. So, again, you know, why are we? Why are we going down this path? Is there? So you'll have to explain this to me because this is not something for me as somebody who is from rural Arkansas that has rural communities, I would not support striking that language. So convince me otherwise and don't tell me it's your intention to prioritize them because that's not gonna happen. It won't. I've seen it too many times. Senator Irvin, thank you for that question. Um, We have seen dwindling, uh, awards based on, uh, dwindling, uh, Um Application, sorry, uh, and so over the past 5 years, we have seen it drop from, you know, 18,000 to 6000. We have an appropriation of 150,000 and we want to use more of our appropriation for that. So instead of striking this language, bring a special language. That states exactly what your intention is, if you want to increase this. Right? Beyond 10,500 that could be, um, Considered for the grant application, but that you will prioritize. Those smaller festivals, first and foremost. You know, with a report back to the legislature or whatever you want to say, then I think that needs to be in the language. Because what's gonna happen is, again, only bigger areas, only bigger festivals are going to get funded. Because these communities don't know how to apply sometimes for these types of grants. They just don't. And I, I, I think that is, um, often correct. I just wanted to note that the 6, festivals that we have funded, uh, this year, or we have, um, got an applications for and funded our Free State YELLFest, Cadder River Festival, Lewisville Firemen Festival festival on rails, lemon Abner, and the Pangburn 4th of July festival. So there are, they are smaller, but we have 150,000 in appropriation, and we're not spending near that. OK, again, what are you doing to get the word out to other festivals and other communities that could apply for this. What do you, what are you doing to get that word out that says that this is available because I could go down a whole list. I'm sure everybody here could about that those festivals are, they can apply for this, they just don't know about it. So, so it was, what's your advocacy to get that out? Primarily it's through our, our regions have, we have 14 regions throughout the state, and we have an industry person, Suzie Cowan, who focuses on getting outreach to festivals across the state, but we have those regions as our advocates too. And so we see a lot of communication through that, um, and, and we, we do have a good historic relationship with small towns across the state. OK, I I, I have, I, I have a lot of discomfort striking this language. I'll just gonna be, I'm gonna state that without an actual intentional plan in place to try to get the money out for what is specifically was meant for. And Pink Tomato Festival, Cave City Watermelon Festival. I could go down a whole list of all these little festivals that could apply for this money. And it could be better used if we let people know about. I have 2 kids right now that are trying to get information and I can't get a secretary to call me back. A constituents trying to find out about scholarships and loans and the higher ed. They can't get, I can't get anybody to call me back. I, I'm So we have a lot of these loans and these grants that are, are very, very difficult to navigate and find out on when they're supposed to apply, how the money is available. So, I will, I won't be forced striking this language because I need more of an outreach plan that I think is more appropriate because this was created for an intentional purpose. And we're moving away from that intentional purpose. Yeah, just, just to kind of piggyback off, off what Senator Irvin said. I, I was the mayor for 10 years at Lake City and all, all of my cities are below 10,500 except part of Jonesboro. But I, I, I've never seen and we had festivals. I never knew this. Now, it's probably my representative's fault, Senator Sullivan. It's probably his fault. So, but I will go home and tell my mayors about this, but if we, if we let this language stand, you know, strike in the 10,500, all of mine's out. And every one of them has festivals, you know. So, like I said, I, I was married, I never knew, probably my fault. I, I may get an email from y'all and overlooked it or I just didn't know, but, um, I will go back and tell them about this. So, you know, I, I'm with Senator Er on strike now. That, that really hurts. I got1 cities and 10 of them, it, it takes some plumb out of the, out of that, you know, the, being able to get it, so. Thank you, Representative Mil Milligan, uh, representative. Kavanaugh, you're next. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm gonna kind of echo what's been said, and this is coming from someone who 12 years ago, worked with the mayor of her city, started a festival. And I'm in a town of 5000. It brings 10,000 people to Walnut Ridge, Arkansas once a year. How much money have you ever given to that? A big fat 0. So Why would I agree to you distract that out when there's, and I'm not talking about you, I'm talking as us as a as a state. Have not done any outreach to let these smaller communities know larger communities have someone that can do this homework, can find this out. Smaller communities don't, so it takes a little more outreach and I understand that it's more difficult to do it. But I think similar to what Senator Irvin was saying is we spend that money better trying to reach out to let them know, because I know y'all want to help the small communities, but raising the limit to who can apply. I can tell you what's gonna happen. Jonesville's gonna apply for their barbecue fest cause they got somebody does that, hunts down grants and monies. That money's going to get sucked up, this $150,000 is going to get sucked up in about 4 festivals. It's gone. So it doesn't even accomplish what we really originally set this up to happen. So I would ask that you not delete this, but we work together as we're working on the other issue about the museums on how we can do outreach and let these smaller communities know, because believe me, I'm going to tell my mayor in Walnut Ridge, go ask for this money, because it's done 100% by donations. And we're lucky that we've got a community that's willing to do that, but a lot of smaller communities don't. Thank you. Cinder Hill Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just kind of want to go off. The same thing at the center Irving just, uh, just said as far as the, uh, small, small towns. If we do away with this, this is all gonna be sucked up. You ain't even gonna fall back to what the comments she made a while ago where you have, have a CD or a festival that will hire a consultant that don't know how to get to this. Is that our purpose? No, I don't think so. I think what we need to do is, if you're not getting anyone to apply, you know, if you keep doing the same thing over and over and over. Guess what, you get the same results. Have you thought about trying a different method to get, do some outreach with because evidently what you're doing is not working, and we have a lot of small festivals in this state that they don't even have, no, have a clue this exists. So I would like to see y'all change your method of how you're contacting or letting them know whether you're contacting every mayor. And let, let them know, hey, if you have a festival in your area, this is available. And kind of pass it on that way because what you're doing is not working and the Senator Irvin said this, this is just gonna get. Sucked up by the, by the larger areas. So, thank you. Thank you, Senator Sener dismay, you recognize, sir? I, I mean, I appreciate some of the conversation, but I'm also trying to understand what it is exactly we're saying like at some point in the past, I'm gonna assume that some legislators that in your seat you're sitting in. And said, you know what? I really want my Whatever it is funded and so they said, you know what, let's set aside $150,000. We're gonna cap it at 10,500 for a community festival and, you know, and then off we go. And now we're saying, setting here, well, it's your fault because you're not doing enough outreach, probably for something that they never even set out to do to begin with that a legislator wanted them to do, and now we're saying it should be for everybody across the state. Well, I don't even I'm trying to understand what we're asking for. I mean the festival is. Supposed to be paid for by the state, the Black Fort Bird Festival and BB supposed to be paid for by the state of Arkansas in some way? Why? The whole thing is to raise money. You know, for whatever foundation is they're supporting or, you know, the 5K and all the other things that go out, what are we saying when we say we want the state of Arkansas to pay for our festivals. Now I'm finding that it's there and I think all their point in in striking that language was none of people using it. We, you know, if we open it up, maybe some more folks will apply. I assume there's no real definition for the word community. So does that mean in an unincorporated town or uh if if a countywide festival is supposed to occur, it's being put on by a county, does it not qualify because it incorporates the entire, I have no idea. I assumed it had more to do with that. I just We're talking about funding everybody's museums. We're talking about funding everybody's festivals. We're talking about funding everything that everybody wants to do. With a finite amount of money. Like, should we have ever been doing it to begin with would have probably been my first question. But Again, I appreciate all the debate and the, and, and the hammering around that we're doing. I just What what are we gonna, what are we gonna ask them to do next? Thank you, Senator. Did you want to reply, sir? Yes sir, you're recognized Mr. Chair. Uh, one thing I would say is that we, we, the division of tourism. Is part of the responsibility is partnership with the small communities we want to partner with the small communities, the benefit that the department gets through this grant program is, is to fund advertising and marketing, uh, associated with these small festivals and so the thought behind that is that when these small festivals are promoting their communities across the state that in a sense is promoting our state and that's what the division of tourism does. And so that's, that's our. I, I see our role in partnership with this and why I think it's been successful and and understood on some of the, the approaches that we can improve on. OK, at this point, um, I'll do one of two things either it sounds like to me that members are wanting a definition of what small is as for just to simplify this, you can either pull it back or I'll run it the way that you've uh requested. So your call. I'll have to ask for a motion. We'll, we'll pull it back and revisit it. OK. Thank you, sir. I appreciate all the conversation and your willingness to work with everyone. OK, Mr. Parish, I guess we're on. Two dash 12. Volume 2, page 12. I guess that's the way I need to say it. Thank you, Mr. Sheriff. Volume 2, page 12. Uh, this is a promotional and educational materials. This language would allow the division to purchase up to 75,000 in promotion and educational merchandise in their M&L line items. This is new language, according to the division, this allows them to be consistent with similar language in the division of heritage. They have the same language on page 2 in your manual, uh, these items raise awareness, engage the public, and promote state parks, tourism. contractions and related activities. It includes branded merchandise like t-shirts, hats, and mugs, education materials like brochures, maps, guides and products like sea packets and also souvenirs. The executive recommendation is the agency request. OK, members, any questions on this one? OK, do I have a motion? And I assume that motions for agency requests, right? OK, I have a motion to have a 2nd. Have a second all in favor say aye. Any oppose? The motion carries. I think you all are finished. We appreciate you coming down today. Thank you. OK, next one's gonna be. Volume 2 page 14. You just recognize yourself and then you can begin. Adam Penman, Legislative Research. OK, we're gonna be starting on page. 14 of volume 2. This is special language with DFA ABC administration. Contingency appropriation transfer authority. This relates to medical marijuana commission when they merged with ABC administration that this language was adopted into the agency. This is connected with the $2 million in there. Uh, contingency line item that was struck yesterday in budget hearings. And the agency states that as this. Line item is no longer there. They no longer need this language. OK, our next one's gonna be on page 21. We're just doing one at a time. We will let me do it that way. OK, any questions in regards to this? you OK. Thank you, Senator, I mean, uh, Representative Jean, do I have a second? OK, I have a second. All in favor say aye. Any pose that motion will carry. Go to the next one, Mr. Penman. Thank you Mr. Chair, uh, as we're saying it's on page 21. This is for funding transfer. This is related to Act 125 of 2024. This is for pregnancy health organizations. This Was a one time. funding transfer this was a million dollars approved in a restricted revenue transfer restricted revenue set aside by Act 561 and it was done during the July 2023 ALC meeting. As this was one time money has been used, the agency says this language is no longer needed. OK, this, it's just as it relates to the steering committee. That correct? OK. OK, do you have a motion? Do I have any questions first? OK, we have a motion? OK, we have a motion for. Are you all requesting this as an agency because it wasn't on here, OK, motion for agency request. We have the motion. Is there a second? We have a 2nd all in favor say aye. Can you pose that motion will carry. OK, Mr. Penman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our next appropriation is going to be on a special language is on page 25. This is the transfer procedures for the infrastructure investment and Jobs Act of 2021. The section that is being stricken is going to be on page 26. Section 5 Takes out language about an oversight or steering committee. And as the there's no steering committee now, the agency requested that this language should be stricken. OK, any questions? We have a motion. Have a motion for agency request. Second. Who did somebody do a second. We have a 2nd. All in favor, say ah. And you oppose that motion also carries. Our next Language is going to start on page 28. This is the transfer procedures for the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. And the same language is being stricken as in the previous piece of special language section 5 about any oversight or steering committee. And as there's no steering committee, the agency is requesting it be stricken and the executive recommendation provides for the agency we have a motion agency request. We have a second. Of a second, any discussion. All they say I In your pose that motion also carried. OK. Mr. Chair, our next piece of special language is gonna take us to page 42. This is the transfer procedures for personal services and regular salaries. These are part of the holding accounts. The agency is asking for the and regular salaries to be stricken from the title and in the last line on page 43. Saying that such appropriation transfer shall be limited to regular salaries or personal services matching or both. The agency states that striking this would allow for more flexibility and allow them to use this appropriation for overtime or extra help if needed. And the executive recommendation provides for the agency request. Any questions? Representative Kevin, let me turn you on. I thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure, so they're wanting not to use this just for personnel services or regular salaries. They're wanting to use it basically. For any personnel service. It could be for contract labor, it could be for anything. Agency may want to come up. Again, if you all would just recognize yourself and then Representative Kavanaugh, you can restate your question then. Melanie has slipped DFA. Alan McVeigh DFA. So, basically, when we strike this language. Basically can be used for anything related to. Anything No, ma'am, it'll still be related to personal services, so that would be regular salaries, um, matching extra help or overtime. OK. Do we already have the authority for extra help or anything like that, is that authority already there somewhere. Yes, then why do we need this? Yes, I apologize. Alan is correct. This address is the last payroll of the fiscal year. So if we have issues with the last payroll of the fiscal year, the way this is currently, we can only address those two items, which is personal service matching and the actual salaries. In this instance, taking this out will allow us the ability to use it for overtime or extra help. But you currently can already do that the rest of the year. Why is it? I guess I'm asking why is the last payroll that you're so special. It, it Representative Kavanaugh, my understanding is it gives the secretary the ability to, to basically true up or to, uh, finish that last payroll period in the case that there's not an opportunity to come back. And uh and make that request, but it, it provides an opportunity for him. He has to report to the peer committee at the next regular meeting. It just get my understanding, it gives us the ability to To, uh, true up that last payroll period. The other sections that are being referenced are specific and have to come for approval of, um, Pier first, Pure and ALC. So basically, this, you can do it and then come back and ask Pierre to approve something you've already done. Yes, ma'am, on the last pyro of the fiscal year only. That is the only time that this can be used. Does that say that in here? Yes. Um, it's on the bottom of page. 42 Yes, it's in the last 3 sentences, uh, on page 42 in the event that a preparation for the payment of personal services is not sufficient for the last payroll of the fiscal year. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Kavanaugh. Any other questions? OK, we have a, uh. Motion by Senator Irvin for agency request. We have 2nd all in favor say aye. And he oppose that motion will carry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our last piece of special language for DFA is going to be on page 57. This is for the Arkadelphia 2025 commission. This language was added in by Act 50 of first extraordinary session of 2003. Added after a tornado hit Arkadelphia. And this was inserted then. And now as it is 2025, the agency asked this language be stricken. Great. Uh, any questions on this? Do we have a motion. We have a motion to second all in favor say aye. And pose That passes So the last one that we're going to be on is the Department of Veteran Affairs? I think we all know you, but you can recognize yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kathy Schmidt, BLR, and I'm going to present the special language for Veterans Affairs, and it is in volume 2 starting on page 77. They have two pieces of language, the first piece is uh use of ADA contingency position pool and contingency appropriation and the requests from the agency is to delete this. This is not being used and has not. been used, if ever, in quite some time. So they want to get rid of this. OK, well let's take this one up. Any questions in regards to this one? I need a motion. We have a motion for agency request and a second all in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. The next piece of language, Mr. Chairman, is found on page 272, uh, page 79 of volume 2. This is new language, uh, so they were requesting this new language, which is some carry forward language and it has to do with a new line item that, uh, was approved this morning, uh, to be added to their veterans cemetery state appropriation. This is general revenue appropriation. There was a line item that is being added for $50,000. And it is for cemetery realignment and maintenance expenses, so it allows them to have a line there for, uh, some cemetery maintenance that they need to do and this uh transfer a language would allow them to carry forward language would allow them to carry forward any, uh, funding in that subfund into the next uh fiscal year, and this is new language that they are requesting, that's the agency request. So it's just for that line item for that line item that appropriation. OK. Any questions? We have a motion in a second. All in favor say aye. And he oppose. That motion will carry. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other business come before the committee? Seeing none were adjourned.